Reading mode: Light Dark

Mamiya ZD is a Major Disappointment . . . .

Go to last post
Robert Whiteman said:
How does lighting alone change the absolute resolution of a device?
Click to expand...
I think I want to gently on this, because I'm not 100% sure, but I
do think lighting can give a different impression of what the sharpness
("absolute resolution") is, I think.

Different contrasts between the white skin and the black eyebrows.
It makes the 5D images look sharper, but then if you look again, it's
really not much different ? I'm just kind of thinking out loud, not
really ready to take a denfinite stance, almost.
 
David Mazeau said:
Robert Whiteman said:
How does lighting alone change the absolute resolution of a device?
Click to expand...
I think I want to gently on this, because I'm not 100% sure, but I
do think lighting can give a different impression of what the
sharpness
("absolute resolution") is, I think.
Click to expand...
While contrast can make an image have an overall sharpness that isn't really there I think that when looking at a 100% image size can say more than contrast can change. There's no hiding the facts at 100% and especially at 200% as in the sample below.
David Mazeau said:
Different contrasts between the white skin and the black eyebrows.
It makes the 5D images look sharper, but then if you look again, it's
really not much different ? I'm just kind of thinking out loud, not
really ready to take a denfinite stance, almost.
Click to expand...
Look closely at the definition and clarity of each image, particularly the fine hairs that make up the eybrows. Now look at the small capillaries in the whites of the eyes and also the eyelashes. The 5D defines them more absolutely than the ZD does.



I've used the other eye in the ZD sample since it's properly focused. These are at 200% and here's where it becomes obvious to those who can understand what they're looking at.

What we don't know, is if the ZD samples were shot RAW or JPEG. Still, the 5D is hanging well with it's 22 MP competitor.

With all things considered, the 5D and it's price point make it a very good option for my upgrade unless something better happens along before that takes place. For the price of the ZD one could have 2 5D's and a number of very fine lenses, and...what I consider better imaging capabilities with a wider range of ISO and a more vast array of lenses to choose from.

Robert
 
I only stick to Facts

So if the photographer was not a friend of mine then now the official images are not good enough? Get some dignity, admit when you are wrong, and zip it. Don't look for more confrontation making things up on the way.
KevinDufff said:
You zip it, brand loyalty to the extreem of seeing no good in
nothing else is boring.

--


KevinDufff said:
KevinDufff said:
KevinDufff said:
KevinDufff said:
KevinDufff said:
KevinDufff said:
KevinDufff said:
KevinDufff said:
Twelve good reasons to get out of bed early in the morning.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
First, David was right about my comments on lighting. Contrasty, directional light, e.g. from sidelight, can accentuate texture and make strands of hair stand out from each other, giving the impression of sharpness. This why the 16x24 prints from a 20D looked so amazingly good at the PhotoPlus Expo. My non-studio shots never look that good, even from my 1Ds.

Second, a question. You state that both of the images are at 100%. If that's true, then you're comparing per-pixel resolution, not total image resolution. At 100%, you're comparing one pixel to one pixel. In such a comparison, my 4MP 1D would put up a good fight and might even win. However, if your intention is to compare the overall resolution, you have to resize the images to the same dimensions, without interpolating, then crop the same size area from each. The smaller file will have a smaller number of pixels covering the same area. This will show you how well each resolves fine detail in a given image.

Not sure which approach you've taken. Could you clarify?

--

'Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.' Lord Acton, British
historian of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
 
yes its distance from the subject and lens MM, yet a larger format you can stand in the same place and have to use a much longer lens to get the same cropping so the depth and dimension change dramatically, the larger the format the more three dimensional you can produce. Take a look at some of this work, http://www.marinoparisotto.com

Its not all about quailty anymore, I don't need higher iso for studio or controlled lighting in fashion, I dont need more pixels to cover a two page spread, I want more dimension and the feel of a larger format at times it gives a different sense of realism.

I have never used 800 iso or even 540iso I have rarely ever used 400 and I did not need to even in that circumstance, but I could always use more dimensional characteristics, its a 3D wrap around feel you don't get with smaller formats, and yes it is still lens distance dependant, only you are using the optical charactersistics of a lens which remain constant and dramtically changing the distance to keep the same framing. On a 4x5 a 400mm would be my most standard portrait lens.

--
Stephen Eastwood
http://www.nyphotographics.com
 
SG2 said:
The images that the cam makes are quite nice, but the only
diffrance from 1Ds is the size, wich will be mached shortly, and
all the specs will be surpassed with a less expensive Canon...
Click to expand...
yes, very

--
Julia
 
You can never duplicate the perspective of a larger fomat on a smaller one.

You can duplicate the perpsective of a smaller format with a larger by using the same lens and cropping into the shot, then the optical characteristics and framing and perspective and DOF will be the same, but you can never get a full body shot with a 150mm lens standing only 5 feet from a 5'9" model with a 35mm, you can with an 8x10 and close with a 4x5 yet the lens compression stays constant. So you want the perspective qualities of a larger format you need a larger format irregardless of pixel count, a 4x5 '10 MP sensor would give you the look, a 25mp 24x36mm chip can't duplicate it.

This is why many fashion shooters use digital backs, its not a question of resolution, although that can come up on occassion, but for most fashion spreads 16MP is plenty, 22 is near ideal considering the 6x45 format requires much less cropping for most standard sizes. 25MP would be a good 35mm sensor size.

--
Stephen Eastwood
http://www.nyphotographics.com
 
You can duplicate any perspective with any format size with different focal lengths. You just need to be standing in the same place and change FL's accordingly. DOF matters are another thing, but I think what's better about MF and LF is resolution, and with LF, the ability to use view cameras. The so-shallow DOF with these larger formats is actually a drawback in most situations. f/1.2 in 35mm size is plenty shallow enough in my opinion.
Stephen Eastwood said:
You can never duplicate the perspective of a larger fomat on a
smaller one.

You can duplicate the perpsective of a smaller format with a larger
by using the same lens and cropping into the shot, then the optical
characteristics and framing and perspective and DOF will be the
same, but you can never get a full body shot with a 150mm lens
standing only 5 feet from a 5'9" model with a 35mm, you can with an
8x10 and close with a 4x5 yet the lens compression stays constant.
So you want the perspective qualities of a larger format you need a
larger format irregardless of pixel count, a 4x5 '10 MP sensor
would give you the look, a 25mp 24x36mm chip can't duplicate it.

This is why many fashion shooters use digital backs, its not a
question of resolution, although that can come up on occassion, but
for most fashion spreads 16MP is plenty, 22 is near ideal
considering the 6x45 format requires much less cropping for most
standard sizes. 25MP would be a good 35mm sensor size.

--
Stephen Eastwood
http://www.nyphotographics.com
Click to expand...
 
perspective will be the same regardless of FLs and AOV as long as you stand in the same place relative to your subject.
 
I'd rather have a small LCD that I can see in the sun and doesn't suck too much power (with a decent zoom capability) than a dim large LCD.

--len
 
I totally understand what Stephen says and i completely agree with it...

btw Stephen, i send you an e-mail yesterday... (vdp...) i hope you find the time to shoot me an answer one of these days

Regards

Carlo
--
have a nice day :-)
 
I kind of almost understand all that... but regardless, I'd guess that:

1) pros have been using medium format for all these years for some
reason beyond resolution, and

2) Stephen would know well why pros use medium format. :-)
 
I'm very sorry but you're just plain wrong. There is absolutely no difference in perspective between a 4x5, or 8x10, or APS-C. Perspective is a function of distance between the lens and the subject. If you are using some interesting new definition of the word "perspective", it would be helpful if you would provide it.

You seem to be confusing depth of field with perspective, or perhaps your earlier comment about "the look" or words to that effect is a combination of DOF, resolution and field of view. Field of view using a 4x5 and a 150mm lens is identical in every respect to field of view with 8x10 and a 300mm lens. At the same aperture, the 8x10/300mm combo will have shallower depth of field and higher resolution. Perhaps that's what you're thinking of when you use the word perspective.

However, when communicating with others, it helps to use the standard definitions of words. For instance, if I define the word "philosophy" as "watching my dog take a poop", and I don't tell anyone, when I state that I wish I could take a college course in philosophy, people might get the wrong idea.

--
Peter White
 
?
Kevin by SPECIFICATION this cam cannot produce "better" image, just larger.

Even if the quality is the same of say 5D it will not give more DR, nor get rid of Bayer, nothing, just offer 400iso, indoor-body etc..

and in less than 12 months it will probably be beaten in image size and better quality and more options by new products on the market (and for lower price)

I AM NOT comparing and saying that 5D is better than ZD or anything like that, but ZD could have been "interesting" 2 years ago, not now

And by the way I do remember the official images from Canon, and not all were producing the potential quality, BUT most of them were showing much higher quality than what the ZD's samles do at the moment (all of them)

I answeedr all your comments,( I think,) and that will be the end of it.
stop making up reasons and facts and go shoot something ;)
ciao
KevinDufff said:
Yeah, ok.

--


KevinDufff said:
KevinDufff said:
KevinDufff said:
KevinDufff said:
KevinDufff said:
KevinDufff said:
KevinDufff said:
KevinDufff said:
Twelve good reasons to get out of bed early in the morning.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top